Full Text
W.P.(C)13420/2019
SHIKHA RAI Petitioner
Through: Mr.L.R.Khatana,Adv.
Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD (services) with
Mr.Nitesh Kr. Singh, Adv.
VINIT SHARMA Petitioner
Mr.Nitesh Kr. Singh,Adv.
MEENU SINDHU Petitioner
Mr.Nitesh Kr.Singh,Adv. Page I of4
2019:DHC:7572-DB \ n?
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER o/o 19.12.2019 CM APPL.No.54461/2019(exemption)in W.P.(C)13420/2019
CM APPL.No.54511/2019(exemption)in W.P.(CI 13431/2019
CM APPL.No.54520/2019(exemption^ in W.P.(CI 13435/2019
Exemptions allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.fCI 13420/2019& CM APPL.No.54462/2019 qnterim relief)
W.P.tCI 13431/2019&CM APPL.Nn.54512/2019(interim relief)
With the consent of the parties, these three writ petitions are being disposed ofby a common order.
JUDGMENT
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.(C) 13420/2019 are being noticed.
3. The presentpetition is directed againstorder dated 31.05.2019 passed bythe Central Administrative Tribunal('Tribunal').Sincetheorderisshort. we deem it appropriate to reproducethe same. "Heard. Learned counselfor the applicant applied under RTIrequesting for providing his OMR answer sheet with respect to the examination in Educational & Vocational Guidance Counsellor (EVGC-Male)examination held on 12.08.1992 asper Annexure A-7. He has received the information to the saidRTIapplication. He is not satisfied to the reply given at Annexure A-8 by the authorities in reply to the said application. Hence, the applicant hasfiledthis OriginalApplicationseekinginformation which has been denied to him under Rules of the RTI Act., 2005. The Page 2 of[4] W.P.(C)13420/2019 & conn. applicant has notchallenged any orderpassed by any respondent authorityfalling under sections 19 & 20 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs."
4. Reading of the order gives an impression that the petitioner was aggrieved by the reply received by him to a query raised by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the OA in limine on the ground that the applicant/petitioner herein had not challenged any order passed by any respondent authority falling under section 19 and 20 ofthe Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.
5. Mr. L.R. Khatana,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order ofthe Tribunal is bad in law and suffers from various legal infirmities and is liable to be quashed.He submits that the Tribunal has completelylost track ofthe prayer made in the OA,which wereproduce below; "8.Reliefsought: In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above in Para 4 and the grounds ofreliefin Para 5 and the position stated in Para 6 herein above, the applicant mosthumblypraysfor thefollowing reliefs:-
6. Mr. Kliatana submits that the petitioners did not challenge the response received under the ll'jl Act. The prayer was to declare the correct results of the examination conducted on 19.08.2018 (wrongly typed as 12.08.1992 in the Tribunal's order)
7. Notice to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted.
8. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents enters appearance.
9. We,have heard counsel for the parties.
10. We are a little surprised at the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the reason that the prayer made does not even seek the relief which has been declined by the Tribunal,
11. Resultantly, we have no option but to set-aside the order of the Tribunal;and remand all the inatters for fresh hearing.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09'*' January,
2020. G.S.SISTANI,J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.